More RPI Fun

General NCS Basketball Stat of the Day33

Thanks to a thread started by grantwolf, I was able to graph State’s RPI ranking starting in early December. Obviously the important thing is where you finish, not where you start:

Graph of 2006 RPI Ranking

I’ll try to update the graph linked here though this blog entry won’t move to the top when I do.

The key thing that I wanted to point out is that with the BC win, State’s ranking has moved out of the “Bubble Range” and into the “Lock” range. In case you’ve forgotten, I have already pointed out the correlations between RPI ranking and the infamous Bubble. Based on recent history, here’s a summary of what has happened for those teams ranked lower than #35:

Year

No of At-Large Bids

with RPI Ranking

#36-#45

#46-#55

#56+

1999

5

4

1

2000

5

5

0

2001

5

2

0

2002

6

4

1

2003

5

3

0

2004

4

3

1

2005

7

1

2

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

General NCS Basketball Stat of the Day

33 Responses to More RPI Fun

  1. class of '74 01/12/2006 at 5:35 PM #

    You gotta love that graph’s trendline. Maybe in a couple of weeks we will have something to really be happy about.

  2. Mr. O 01/12/2006 at 5:54 PM #

    I have always considered the Sagarin a much better measure.

    We are 13th in the blended rating. 14th in the ELO Chess when only winning and losing counts and then 16th in the predictor which takes into account margin of victory.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0506.htm

  3. Rick Jernigan 01/12/2006 at 8:19 PM #

    VaWolf82 – I have a question about the RPI. In the early season, I’ve noticed that some teams that look like they are higher than they should be have played a non Division I team. Wisconsin Milwaukee & Northern Iowa are two examples. Kansas used to play a non Division I team named Wabash (I think). I was wondering if this is not actually a good scheduling idea. If NC State replaced, say The Citadel that counts in the RPI with Shaw that doesn’t, how would this affect our RPI? I’m thinking it would help a lot in the early season, less so at the end of the year. I know the NCAA Selection Committee wouldn’t count this as a win but if it improved the RPI, it might be worth it.

    This is an RPI question – I don’t want anybody’s head to explode that I’m suggesting an easier schedule. My thought was that in the very early schedule if we changed one of our early season dogs with a non-Division I team and then just went on the road and played a big name team and don’t worry about the return game we might be better off from an RPI point.

  4. SaccoV 01/12/2006 at 10:14 PM #

    Nice work here VA. I’m glad to see how the RPI changes from week-to-week, especially after accumulating some wins. Lastly, we should perhaps create our own ratings system and call it the Fowler Index. It would measure State’s continuing rise despite not playing any games. For instance, in a period from June to September, we would go from 15th to 3rd in the nation.

  5. VaWolf82 01/12/2006 at 10:22 PM #

    Good question Rick….wish I had a good answer. Here’s a short blurb from kenpom.com

    One point to consider is this: how would you replace the stinker teams on the schedule? One way is to schedule a non-D1 team, a game that won’t even exist is the eyes of the NCAA. Supposedly the committee frowns on such tactics, but to what degree who knows.

    I’ve started playing around with some OOC stuff, and one of the things that occurs to me is that State is fishing in the wrong ponds. Certain conferences stink, have always stunk, and will always stink. So why schedule games from those conferences?

    I understand scheduling the Citadel (assuming Les is still the AD) and I’m all for scheduling WCU with Hunter. But why in the world would you schedule VMI?

  6. VaWolf82 01/12/2006 at 10:35 PM #

    I have always considered the Sagarin a much better measure.

    The following statement would shock most of my friends….I really haven’t formed an opinion about which is better. It’s beyond doubt that the selection committee uses RPI (among other things) for seeding and at-large bids. I like the organization of kenpom’s site so much, that I just tend to go there.

    I appreciate you pointing out the Sagarin archives the other week. The RPI numbers at kenpom are not updated for the NCAAT games. There are several instances where this information is important. However, when judging the season as a whole, it is foolish to ignore the most important part of the season….and the final Sagarin rankings includes the NCAAT games.

    So for me, I intend to use them both…but I’ll probably reference the RPI more often. If you haven’t used kenpom’s site…you owe it at least a look. One of the things that I like most is the links he has set up to the individual’s teams schedules and the RPI ranking of past and future opponents.

    The thing I like most about the Sagarin archives is the option to look at the teams broken down into conferences. It’s quick and simple to get a snap-shot of the ACC…which is mostly all that I care about anyway.

  7. PACDADDY 01/12/2006 at 10:59 PM #

    ^now we’re talking VA! http://www.teamrankings.com is a good source as well…

    but I like Sagarin better. Thanks for the info…did I just say that?

  8. Rick Jernigan 01/13/2006 at 7:55 AM #

    VaWolf82 – Thanks. If the committee frowns on this, it is not a good idea.

  9. Jeff 01/13/2006 at 8:04 AM #

    (sarcasm) Oh no!!! Oh no!!! “This site” only puts “bad” information up!?!? (sarcasm) As if we control the conclusion based on the agnostic raw information.

    I tend to like the Sagarin better, as well. But, as long as the idiots at the NCAA use the RPI as a tool, it is more relevant to discuss.

    Unless I am missing something (or we have a collapse of epic proportions), I’d be surprised if we fall below the #35-40 range at any other point in the season. Our ACC schedule should continue to generally improve the number.

  10. VaWolf82 01/13/2006 at 8:24 AM #

    Unless I am missing something (or we have a collapse of epic proportions), I’d be surprised if we fall below the #35-40 range at any other point in the season.

    If real life would quit interfering with my free time, I could finishing looking at how important winning and losing streaks at the end of the year are. My preliminary conclusion is that it doesn’t take “epic proportions” to put bubble teams out of the NCAAT.

    Grantwolf is posting the RPI numbers for every ACC team on one thread at PP. If you notice that a team is “tanking” or “smoking”, point it out and I can do that graph…as soon as time allows.

  11. Jeff 01/13/2006 at 8:30 AM #

    As little “respect” as people think we get…we have a national position that will easily get us into the tournament with a decent overall record despite a weak RPI. Just look at last year — an RPI in the 60s as the lowest rated at-large bid.

    At 2-1 (with a road win) against this year’s ACC schedule that only includes one game vs Duke — we are IN the NCAA unless we totally blow it.

  12. class of '74 01/13/2006 at 8:58 AM #

    I’m reminded of that Yogi-ism: It ain’t over till it’s over!

  13. Astral Rain 01/13/2006 at 9:56 AM #

    I can easily see, looking at the rest of the ACC schedule, a 12-4 conference finish. Even if the ACC is down this year, 12-4 in a conference that has multiple ranked teams should get you a fairly good seed. I’m projecting/guessed NCSU to be about a #5 at the end this year, maybe a #4.

    Anyone who complains about a top 4 seeding is expecting too much right now- how many times has NCSU gotten a seeding above 4. Sendek got a 3 in 2004, but I’ll admit I was expecting a 5.

  14. Jeff 01/13/2006 at 10:13 AM #

    ^ Expecting too much right now?

    Dear God. When in God’s name can we ever be allowed ‘expect’ better?

    We’ve got a well-balanced, very experienced, talented team. And other Wolfpackers are saying that we would be “expecting too much” to be considered one of the Top 16 teams in the country a single time in a decade?

    I am vexed.

    I ‘expect’ at clear #2 finish in the ACC around something like 13-3 and a Top 3 (top 4 at the worst) seed.

    If not now…then WHEN?

    Next year when Evtimov, Cam, and Bethel are gone and we are playing as many as 6 guys who have never stepped on the floor?

    …or the next year when odds are Brackman and Simmons are gone?

    As I said in my comments about “peak performance” in the post on the “Quoting Wednesday” entry…if we DON’T achieve something tangible this year…we never will (and we certainly won’t ever be “expected” to by our ever-increasingly ‘content with minimum results fanbase’

  15. VaWolf82 01/13/2006 at 10:18 AM #

    12-4 in a conference that has multiple ranked teams should get you a fairly good seed.

    I think that you have too many assumptions here:
    – Projecting State’s record as 12-4
    – Completely ignoring the “upsets” that have already occurred
    – Assuming that the ACC can keep multiple teams ranked

    Just a reminder:
    In 2000, the ACC only got three teams invited
    In 2002 and 2003, the ACC only got four teams invited.

    There is simply too much BB to be played for these types of projections. State’s best victory so far is against a team that looks to be tanking….BC. By the end of the month, we will know alot more.

  16. Mike 01/13/2006 at 12:43 PM #

    “I’ve started playing around with some OOC stuff, and one of the things that occurs to me is that State is fishing in the wrong ponds. Certain conferences stink, have always stunk, and will always stink. So why schedule games from those conferences?

    I understand scheduling the Citadel (assuming Les is still the AD) and I’m all for scheduling WCU with Hunter. But why in the world would you schedule VMI?”

    The answer to that seems pretty straightforward- because we don’t build our schedule based on an RPI maximization formula. Outside of the 3-4 notable OOC games and legacy games, the rest of the teams are picked based more on logistics, regional travel distance, and payout.

    I would like to see us scrap any games against >250RPI teams, but I can also see why that is much easier said than done.

  17. VaWolf82 01/13/2006 at 12:58 PM #

    The rest of the teams are picked based more on:
    – logistics
    – regional travel distance
    – payout.

    Forgive me for rearranging your post, but you’ve exactly captured the some of the points I’ve been pondering recently. Now let me ask you a question….of these three items, which is the most important to Lee/Herb (or whoever) when the OOC schedule is set up?

    Most of the season ticket holders have been locked into their seats (and donations) through LTR’s. Thus the income generated by the BB program is a relatively fixed number. However, the expenses incurred by the program will vary based on how much State has to pay the small schools that come to Raleigh without requiring a return-trip from State.

    There was an article several years ago about picking an OOC football opponent based on how much money two different schools charged for their away OOC games. Assuming that the same holds true for BB teams, I have to wonder if State’s OOC schedule is based largely on financial and not competitive reasons.

  18. class of '74 01/13/2006 at 1:36 PM #

    ^To date, our OOC has certainly not been based on competitive reasons that’s evident.

  19. Mr. O 01/13/2006 at 1:50 PM #

    I went through the schedule yesterday and got the same 12-4 number. We will have our toughest 3 road games out of the way after Duke. I assumed winning all games at home and then two of these four games (Miami, GT, Wake and Clemson) in addition to Duke.

    Even if we really slip up, then it looks like 10-6 would be “slipping up”.

    Jeff: Personally, I consider the Sweet 16 last year pretty significant since it was the first time we had been there in over a decade. We were a 3 seed two years ago and had a 2nd place finish in the ACC. For a program a dozen years removed from this type of success, those accomplishments seem significant considering they were on they continued a string of NCAA tourney appearances, were back-to-back in terms of suceeding in the regular season one year and then the tournament the next, and that we are positioned to surpass each of the last 4 years this season.

    As far as losing some guys next year, the nice thing about our program is that sophmore and freshman classes are the highest ranked recruiting classes on this years team. This year’s freshman aren’t even contributing. 4 years ago, we couldn’t have survived without our freshman class that included Hodge, Evtimov and Powell.

    We all panicked when Herb struck out on E. Williams, J. Gray and C. Paul which meant that we had two very low rated classes in back to back years. Many of us, myself included, feared what our program would like when they were upper classmen and thought Herb should be removed immediately.

    But instead, Herb found a way to get it done so that this years team is potentially his best ever instead of what us “doom and gloomers” all thought would be a team that would completely struggle. How does the future look compared to how it looked a few years ago?

    Unless something unexpected happens, we should have Atsur, Simmons, Brackman, Grant, Costner, Fells and McCauley all coming back. That is 6 top 50 players in all. I don’t know that a Sendek team has ever had 6 top 50 players. Larry Davis might make a 7th top 50 player depending on the final rankings. If we went by Bob Gibbons rankings, then I read two weeks ago when he commented that Dan Werner and Larry Davis would both be in his final top 50. He also said that Chris Wright is a top 10 player in his rankings and seems to be at worst a McD AA. Signing Chris Wright really positions us because he could have a major impact on the other guys we are trying to sign in that class. There was a quote in the most recent ACC Sports Journal that if he has to, then he is going to recruit guys to join him in this class.

    Last night, I read about the transfer from Pitt (Trevor ????) in the ACC Sports Journal. Brick Oettinger had a lot of nice things to say about him. There were some major division 1 schools including Kentucky (I meant to bring in the writeup to put some of the comments on here) looking at him, but Mark Phelps and Herb Sendek got on him early, got him to visit and got a commitment out of him. Many times, Brick will seriously question this type of signing. But the way it was written gave me a lot of hope that he could be a good player for us. He mentioned that Herb might have found another sleeper. He has good size, good skills, and he can shoot and he is enrolled at NC State and working out with the team already.

    The “doom and gloom” outlook a few years ago was quite reasonable. But the situation now and 4 years ago is quite different, so I guess that is why I can’t understand the way some people think. Herb found a way to get it done in the worst possible scenario. It seems like people would be more hopeful now.

    I guess it is all in how you look at things.

  20. Mr. O 01/13/2006 at 2:10 PM #

    One correction – Grant was only a top 75 player.

  21. class of '74 01/13/2006 at 2:46 PM #

    ^ That’s Trevor Ferguson and he’s suppose to be a ball handling whiz about 6’5″ and a decent shooter from the outside. He originally signed with Pitt without ever visiting the school! He decides just days before school begins that Pitt is not for him afterall and somehow gets a release. So he has 4 years of eligibilty left. A very strange case for sure.
    He’s playing prep ball in Indiana now. He is originally from the St. Pete, FL area.

  22. Mr. O 01/13/2006 at 3:06 PM #

    I am almost positive that he is at NC State and has been sitting our bench for games. He enrolled the Spring semester to start his “transfer year” this spring and then end next fall. I think he will be eligible to play the 2nd semester next season.

    But you are right on the name and his story about getting here. The only thing to add is that be broke both of his wrists falling after a dunk in HS his senior. He got an extra year of HS eligibility and then went to Pitt.

    I will get the list of names that were recruiting him. It was pretty impressive.

  23. Rick 01/13/2006 at 3:28 PM #

    “As far as losing some guys next year, the nice thing about our program is that sophmore and freshman classes are the highest ranked recruiting classes on this years team”

    They will be inexperienced and since it seems to take more than a year to figure out our offensive and defensive schemes I would imagine we will hear plenty of “they are young and inexperienced” comments next year.
    We giving virtually no PT to the frosh and will pay for it next year. We have one experienced guard next year. ONE.
    If having Grant as your backup PG does not scare you, it should

  24. Mr. O 01/13/2006 at 3:47 PM #

    It doesn’t scare me as much as the thought I had 4 years ago of replacing Hodge’s class with the two worst back to back recruiting classes that Herb Sendek has ever had during his tenure at NC State and two of the worst in the ACC those two years.

    Personally, I really like what Gavin Grant brings to the table and think he is going to be a really good player for us. I think he will come around this year.

  25. Jeff 01/13/2006 at 4:00 PM #

    “As far as losing some guys next year, the nice thing about our program is that sophmore and freshman classes are the highest ranked recruiting classes on this years team�

    But the freshman class isn’t getting ANY playing time (and next year’s freshman class is one of Sendek’s worst rated class).

    IMHO, we SHOULD be ‘ok’ next season with what returns. But, traditionally that kind of inexperienced team is ripe for an excuse-mongering season in Raleigh. God help us if we have an injury.

1 2

Leave a Reply